Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Nov 2009 23:41 UTC
Red Hat "As a major Linux vendor, one might expect that Red Hat's new Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization for Servers solution would be able to run on Linux servers. You'd be wrong. Not only is that not the case, but the Management Server piece of RHEV, which provides virtualization management capabilities, requires users to be running Microsoft's Windows Server. That's no typo: A Linux vendor is requiring its users to run one of its key new products on the rival, closed source Windows operating system. According to Red Hat, the plan is to have a Linux version ready by some point in 2010. But in the meantime, Red Hat customers who want to run the virtualization manager must purchase or already own a Windows server."
Thread beginning with comment 393359
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Did I understnad correctly?
by ndrw on Sat 7th Nov 2009 09:28 UTC in reply to "Did I understnad correctly?"
ndrw
Member since:
2009-06-30

Certainly the fact that Mono is sponsored and controlled by their competitor doesn't help, neither does the unclear legal status.

But all the politics aside, I fail to see how using Mono instead of Java would help them porting the whole thing faster. In either case they have to rewrite it from scratch, perhaps tweaking parts of the design along the way. And with all the Java know-how RedHat has, and maturity of Java itself, I'm not surprised seeing they chose it instead of Mono.

Reply Parent Score: 2

ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Certainly the fact that Mono is sponsored and controlled by their competitor doesn't help, neither does the unclear legal status.


I think depending on an open source platform sponsored by a competitor like Novell is better than using a closed platform sponsor like MS.

Anyway, Mono has a very legal status; Microsoft published a "Community promise" (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx) when they say you are sure developing any implementation of several technologies, including C# and their base libraries; in other hand, Mono has developed a nice ecosystem with their own classes useful to develop new things from that with no danger of being sued.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

Guys,

This is NOT a codebase that will work in Linux using Mono. It depends on too many MS specific technologies and was developed by Qumranet and used in production systems already with several customers before the Red Hat acquisition.

The effort to port it to using Mono is not going to be very different from the effort to rewrite it using Java and release it as open source with having to worry about "community promises" from Microsoft which doesn't cover anything beyond base libraries.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

My impression was a significant portion of the code was already written in C#, making porting almost trivial (Novell provides tools to automate Windows -> Linux .Net migration).

There might also be C# -> Java source code converters, too. But I don't think it will be as efficient as using the same language / libraries across platforms.

Reply Parent Score: 2

ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

Porting from C# to Java is equally trivial (after all C# was deliberately made very similar to Java). Just put two programmers that will rewrite the whole thing in a week or two. The difficult part is switching from one framework to another, as this requires more redesign, documentation and testing work, but that is also no better in Mono than in Java. I would rather say the opposite - Java being far more robust framework than Mono makes the difficult part easier.

In the end, why would RedHat _want_ to have one of their core products written in C#? I would not be surprised if they have ultimately moved from C# to Java even on Windows, to save some maintenance effort (that of course depends on the quality of the existing code).

Reply Parent Score: 1